Basically, the idea is to compare two sequences "term-by-term".
One caveat, one may have to go out quite a few terms to get "dominance" of one sequence over another. But discarding any finite amount of "initial terms" does not affect the behavior of the sequence "at infinity".
Now if for some $N$, we have for EVERY $n > N$, $b_n > a_n \geq 0$, and the sequence $\{b_n\}$ converges, then the $a_n$ are "trapped" between the limit of the $b_n$ and 0 (as $n$ "approaches infinity", that is to say, is sufficiently large).
This, by itself, doesn't mean $\{a_n\}$ converges, it might just "oscillate wildly" between the limit for the $b_n$ and 0.
If, however, the $b_n$ converge to 0, the $a_n$ have no choice in the matter.
Now if the $a_n$ fail to converge, the behavior of the $b_n$ will be "even worse" (it can't get better, because the $a_n$ are "keeping the $b_n$ away" from any potential limit).
Calculus teachers (sly devils that they are), don't want to make this easy for you, so they typically want you to look at:
$a_n = \dfrac{c_n}{d_n}$
where both "top and bottom" behave the same "at infinity" (both go to 0, or both become infinitely large), and it becomes a matter of "practice" recognizing which "side" wins, and often, you have to resort to some OTHER sequence for comparison.
I wish I could tell you "which other sequences" to use, but this is almost ALWAYS done on a case-by-case basis.
Of course, teachers "rig the game", they assign problems THEY already know the answers to. In actual practice, it can be VERY DIFFICULT to decide if a sequence converges. It's an art-form, really, there are a few "tricks" to use, but sometimes everything you try doesn't help.